VivaMalta - The Free Speech Forum - Moon Landing?

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 24, 2014, 12:47:33 PM

Home Forum Help Search Login Register
+  VivaMalta - The Free Speech Forum
|-+  Forum
| |-+  Articles
| | |-+  On Historical Events
| | | |-+  Moon Landing?
* * *
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. « previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Moon Landing?  (Read 2008 times)
VM Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 510

« on: April 16, 2005, 12:57:32 PM »

I know this topic is old..but..
some pictures..

On the moon, there is only one light source, the sun. This is a shot of Buzz Aldrin and Neal Armstrong planting the US flag on the moon. If the sun is the only light source used by NASA on the moon, Aldrins shadow A shadows should not be so much longer than Armstrong's.
This is a famous picture labeled "Man on the Moon" I have a poster of this picture hanging on my wall in my room, and it always gives me a chuckle.

If you will look at area B you will notice a shadow cast across Buzz Aldrin's space suit. Once again, if the Sun is the only light source used on the moon, this shadow would have been MUCH darker.
Looking at area C you will notice that the surface of the moon fades off into the distance, then is met with the moon's horizon. In a no-atmosphere environment, the ground shouldn't have faded out, but stayed crystal sharp unto the moon's horizon.

Looking at area D you can plainly see some type of structure reflected through Aldrins helmet. I do not know what it is, but it is there.

In this picture, taken from the LEM, you can see at least two abnormalities. In section E you see an abnormal shadow on the moon's surface. NASA claims that this shadow is the shadow cast by the Lunar Module, but on earth, even when aircraft is flying low to the ground, it does not produce such a clearly defined shadow.

OK, here's the kicker... if you will look at section 3 you will notice there are no stars in the sky. In fact, you will never see any stars in any NASA Moon photographs, or hear an astronaut mention anything about the glorious stars that are visible when out of the earths atmosphere.

if you look in areas 6 and J , you will again see no stars. In area K you will notice that one side of the LEM in covered in shadow, but somehow the symbol of the US flag in illuminated. This very well could have been a touch up job.

This is a picture of Alan Bean holding up a Special Environmental Examiner Container. This picture was taken off a camera that was strapped to Conrad's chest. If the camera was attached to Conrad's chest, the top of Bean's helmet L should not be in this picture.

All of the shadows reflected in Bean's visor M are going off in separate directions, not in parallel lines like they should be.

If you will look at the Environmental sampler that Al Bean is holding, N , The reflection is coming from a light source other than the sun, but it is possible that light is being reflected off the space suit.

There is a strange anomaly in the sky 7 , It is yet to be determined what that might be.

In our last picture, I would like to direct your attention to the circled portion of the screen. These Lunar Rover tracks are quite well defined, don't you agree? Well, the fact is, you need a mixture of a compound, and water, to make such defined lines. I don't know if that idea is so convincing, but I assure you, this next one is.

If you look at the rock labeled R you will notice a the letter C carved in the rock. Perhaps a gag left by the props department?

Here is a portion of the previous picture, blown up. Take a look at the cross hairs that appear on the picture. These hairs appear on EVERY lunar picture. These cross hairs are placed between the shutter of the camera, and the film, supposedly. If you take a look at the cross hair on the left, this cross hair was placed behind the lunar rover, you can see the Lunar Rover is in front of the cross hairs.

Facts about the Moon

An average days temperature on the moon ranges from 260? F to 280? F, too for film to survive. At those temperatures, film crinkles up into a ball.

About 20 miles about the Earth, there is a radiation belt named the Van Allen belt. No human can get through this belt, If you try than you get hit with 300+ rads of radiation. Unless they are surrounded on each side by 4 feet on lead.

There are millions of micro-metors traveling at speeds up to 6000 MPH, which would tear the ship to pieces.

If you look at the pictures/video of people on the moon, you will never see more than 3 stars.

When the LEM set down on the Lunar surface, it gave out 3000 lb. worth of thrust. This would have created a massive hole underneath the Lunar Module, but in pictures of the Lunar Module, the ground underneath is untouched.

But why would they do it?

I have come up with three reasons why NASA would fake a landing on the moon:

MONEY. NASA gathered about 30 billion dollars pretending to go to the moon. That means that someone is getting a lot of money in their pockets.

ATTENTION. If you ever saw the movie "Wag the Dog", the president has sexual relations with a 12 year old. This information goes out to the media 1 week before elections. So, to get the publics mind off of the little Girl, the president stages a war with Albania. The moon shots were the same concept. People did not like what was going on with the Vietnam war, so, to get the publics mind off of all the bad things going on in Vietnam, the US faked a moon landing. If you check your dates, we abruptly stopped going to the moon around the same time the Vietnam War Ended. (

TO WIN THE SPACE RACE -- Back in the late 60's early 70's, Russia and the US were in a heated battle to see, well, pretty much who was better. Once the US realized that they couldn't send a man to the moon, they couldn't just say, "OK Russia, we give up."

Report to moderator   Logged

VM Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 510

« Reply #1 on: April 16, 2005, 12:59:18 PM »

NASA responses..

The temperatures on the moon reach 280 degrees Fahrenheit. Wouldn't this have baked the photographic film until it frizzled?

This theory is based on the maximum temperature that the moon's surface reaches during the long lunar day. (The moon has a day that lasts for two of our weeks.) That's very, very hot. Fortunately, no-one went to the moon to spread film out under the sun for two weeks.

The Apollo missions were timed to take place during lunar mornings. The temperatures are at their most hospitable then, so the astronauts themselves were at not going to overheat.

The film also spent all its time either within the camera or within the lander. Unlike the moon's surface, both of these were designed to reflect as much of the sun's heat as possible. So they never got anywhere near the temperatures that the surface reaches.

You also have to keep in mind that because there is no air, there is no ambient temperature and no convected heat on the moon. So if you are out of direct sunlight, and therefore radiated heat, you will be quite chilly. As the camera and lander were designed to reflect heat, the film wouldn't even pick up much conducted heat from them. So that's no convection, little radiation, little conduction. There are no other methods of receiving heat.

The cross hairs on this photograph appear to go behind the objects in the photograph. Does this suggest that the photograph is a faked 'pasted-together' image?

The cross hairs are called reseau-lines and were produced by a glass plate within the camera, between the lens and film. They cause a black cross on the film where they block the light from reaching the film directly below them. If, however, you are taking a photograph of a really bright white object, the white, over-exposed part of the film 'bleeds' into other parts of the film. This is particularly the case if the adjacent part of the film is black. This is what is happening where the thin reseau-lines meet a bright, reflective part of the photograph and is not unusual. It happens on photographs with reseau-lines on Earth too.

It occurs in a number of the Apollo photographs, but you only see it where the reseau-lines seem to disappear behind a bright white part. You never see it happening anywhere else.

On some of the video footage of the Apollo landings you can see right through the astronauts to what's behind them. It's like they're ghosts! Doesn't this suggest they were faked?

This is a result of the primitive video technology used. What could happen if they were pointed at a bright stationary object is that the image of it could 'burn' into the electronic receptors. It's a temporary effect, just the same way your eyes can still see a light bulb if you stare at it long enough then turn away. It's also not dissimilar to what can happen to a computer monitor without a screensaver. What happened on the Apollo pictures is that the image of the stationary lander in the background was 'burned' onto the camera. So it remained on screen over the top of the astronaut even as he walked in front of it.

You don't have to take NASA's word on this. Ask anyone who purchased one of the first video cameras on the market in the 1970s.

This photograph of Buzz Aldrin was taken by Armstrong on the moon's surface. The camera he was carrying was mounted on his chest pack. So why does the picture appear to have been taken from above Aldrin and we can see the top of his head?

The answer to this question is quite straight-forward. The ground they are standing on is not flat. Armstrong was further up an incline, so he was higher than Aldrin.

This photograph shows, like many other Apollo photos, strange blobs in the sky. What are they?

The blobs here are not aliens, they are a common camera effect called flare. They are caused by bright light shining into the lens and reflecting off its interior and then down onto the film. This isn't unusual and you'll be able to find it happening in lots of photographs, whether taken on the moon or on Earth.

This photo has strange smudged areas and lines on it. Does this mean it's been altered?

All these queries are based not on the actual photographs, but on scanned jpeg images published on web-sites. Jpeg images are great, they take a large image and compress it down to a download friendly-size so that you don't have to wait until something the size of a planet crawls down your phone line. Unfortunately there's a trade-off with this. Jpeg's use a 'losey' compression algorithm which mean the image loses detail. Usually this doesn't matter as the detail lost is minor and the algorithm makes a good job of disguising it. But if you look really hard, or magnify bits, you're always going to see flaws.

It doesn't mean the original photo was faked.

Some of the photographs show the cross hairs at a strange angle. Were they stuck on squint by mistake?

Some of the photographs have the reseau-line cross hairs at odd angles because the photograph was originally taken with the camera squint. When the image was developed and printed for publication it was rotated to straight up and down, and then cropped to a tidy rectangle.

Why can't you see the stars in the photographs on the moon?

There's really no different between the sky on the Moon and the sky during day time on Earth. The fact that the sky on Earth is blue because of the atmosphere and it is black on the Moon makes no difference. You cannot see stars during the day.

The lunar surface is very bright. Brighter than the brightest day in the hottest part of the world. This is obvious when you think about it. There are no atmosphere or clouds on the moon. In comparison to this bright surface, the stars are very dim.

It is very difficult to get a photograph of a very dim object and a very bright object at the same time. If you set the camera to take a photograph of the bright object (using a fast exposure) you won't capture the dim object at all. If you set the camera to take a picture of the dim objects, then the bright objects will appear as very fuzzy and over-exposed blobs.

The cameras and films the Apollo missions took with them were also designed to photograph activities on the moon's surface. They were not designed to take photographs of the stars. It doesn't mean the stars weren't there, just that the photographs did not capture them. The exposures were set to work with the brightly light surface and astronauts.

Who filmed the lander taking off from the moon's surface?

This often shown footage was taken by a remotely controlled camera, mounted on the lunar rover which was left behind. They knew exactly how fast the lander would ascend, so knew how fast it had to pan up. It could all be set up in advance of the take off and triggered remotely from Earth.

Were all the photographs taken by the astronauts just too good? They were being taken by amateur photographers in difficult conditions, yet they all appear almost perfect!

The astronauts received a great deal of training before they left Earth, part of this was in the operation of the cameras, which were specially designed by Hasselblad's to be used by the astronauts with their suits on.

The Apollo astronauts took around 17,000 photographs on the lunar surface. There's plenty of not-so-great photographs that NASA simply have never publicised. Over or under exposed, quint angles, accidental exposures. But those that the public are most familiar with are the best ones.

This photo obviously shows astronauts fully suited up and on Earth. Doesn't this prove that all the photographs are fakes and these Earth-bound photographs were used to create them?

There are plenty of photographs like this released by NASA. They show astronauts in training on Earth. Are we to believe they never tried anything out until they landed on the moon?

Why were the TV pictures so bad?

The Apollo missions took video cameras with them. Motion film cameras would just be too bulky and problematic to operate in a vacuum. The problem with the video cameras of the 1960s was they were a technology in its infancy. Some were used in TV studios, but these were far too big and required professional camera men to operate them. So NASA spent a great deal of money in developing and buying the latest technology for portable video cameras. These were cameras that wouldn't be available commercially for at least another 5 years. They were amazing at the time, but, quite frankly, rubbish by today's standards.

That was before we even consider the difficulties in broadcasting the video signal back to the Earth. And once these images arrived the best way to convert the signal to TV standards was actually by recording the pictures directly from a screen. So the pictures we now have were taken by some of the first video cameras, in the most hostile conditions ever experienced by man, transmitted from further away than anyone had ever been before, and then filmed off an ordinary TV screen. Sometimes we need reminding just how amazing an achievement it was to get these pictures at all, no matter how fuzzy they turned out.

However, these problems are ignored in some of the hoax theories that claim the quality of the TV pictures should have been better and indicate fakery. NASA deliberately made the them poor to disguise their hoax. Seems like they just can't win. The photos are too good, so it's a fake. But the TV pictures are too bad, so it's a fake.

Why is it if you speed up the video footage of the Apollo landing does everything look normal? Does this not suggest that the footage was filmed on Earth and slowed down to look like it was on the moon?


If you were to film yourself running, then play it back at double speed you would look like an Olympic sprinter. Does this make you are a world class athlete? Playing with film speeds really doesn't prove anything.

The astronauts on the moon moved slowly because of their bulky spacesuits. They may have been lighter on the moon, but they still have the same mass and restricted movement the same way. Speeding up their movements shows nothing.

But there are other visible clues to indicate that these video footage must have been filmed on the Moon. The behaviour of the dust, for instance, indicates it must have been filmed in a vacuum and in low gravity.

This picture and other filmed footage of the American flag on the moon seems to show it fluttering. How is this possible if there's no atmosphere or wind on the moon?

This is one of the most common questions about the Apollo landings and is often used as evidence of a hoax. Fortunately there is nothing peculiar about what we can see here at all. Not if we remember this is happening on the moon.

Firstly the flag had a horizontal bar attached to it at the top. This was done so that the flag would stand out from the flagpole. NASA appreciated that there would be no wind on the moon, so any normal flag would just hang limply and unattractively down the pole. To make things look better they added a bar that stood out at 90 degrees from the pole. The flag was really hanging from this, rather than from the pole. The bar was also not quite the full width of the flag, so that it was slightly furled to give a 'wave look' to it.

The moon's surface, once you get past the thin layer of dust, is very hard. So getting the flagpole to stick in was a tough job. The footage shows the astronaut twisting the pole back and forth in order to try and get it further into the ground. This movement made the attached bar and flag flutter.

The flagpole itself was light aluminium that is quite springy. Even once the astronaut let go the pole would continue to vibrate. This in turn would shake the bar and flap the flag. Without any air to dampen this it would continue to do so for longer than you might expect

Were Apollo Saturn rockets big enough to reach the moon. Where was all the fuel they'd need stored?

The majority of the Saturn rockets were required to place Apollo 11 into an orbit of only 100 nautical miles high. After that other factors come into play; speed given by the angular rotation of Earth (they don't put the launch site near the equator just for the sunny weather) and the fact that once you're moving in space nothing will slow you.

All that was required from the rockets beyond this was to escape the initial Earth orbit (the "translunar injection", no small task, but not requiring as much effort as the initial stage) and any minor adjustments on the way. What it's really doing is establishing a bigger, 'loopier' orbit of Earth that will make it cross the path of the Moon's orbit. Once there it does another minor burn (the "lunar orbit insertion") and it's in a lunar orbit instead. So the rockets don't burn anything like all the way there and they never 'escape' from Earth's gravity. It's all done with orbits.

A lot of this 'proof' of a hoax is usually based on a comparison with the size of the Space Shuttle's fuel tanks and rockets. No consideration about the relative size and weights of either crafts. The Apollos actually jettisoned most of their rockets and weight once they have left the Earth, leaving behind a comparatively tiny orbiter and lander. The Shuttles, on the other hand, come back down pretty much as they left.

Why does the lander take off look funny, almost like it was on wires? And why can't we see any of the flames from the rocket?

The take-off looks strange to our eyes because the lander is blasting off against the moon's gravity, so it needs to exercise far less thrust than our Earth-bound perceptions are used to.

We cannot see any flames from the lander because the lander rockets used a combination of hydrazine and dinitrogen tetroxide. These substances burn with practically an invisible flame in a vacuum. So no flame would be seen.

How did the astronauts survive in the heat of the lunar day?

The astronaut's spacesuits weren't white just because it looked smart, white reflects the most heat radiation, thereby minimising the amount absorbed.

The suits were also cooled using a system not unlike your refrigerator in your kitchen. It worked because water sprayed into a vacuum experiences a very rapid drop in pressure and consequently temperature.

The same thing happens to aerosol sprays. Why is it that spray-on deodorant is so cold? It is due to the sudden drop in pressure between the can and outside air.

So, when a small amount of water was sprayed onto a cooling element on the rear of the spacesuit its temperature dropped so much that it would freeze over it. The cooling water of the spacesuit is then pumped through this element. The heat of the water melts the ice which rapidly boils off (the boiling point of water being very low in a vacuum) into space taking the unwanted heat with it.

How was this carried in the lunar lander? It seems to be too big!

A great deal of money was spent on the lunar rover and a great number of problems had to be resolved before it could work on the moon's surface. It wasn't a last minute addition deployed without any thought.

As with everything taken to the moon, weight and size were major considerations. The Lunar Rover was designed to fold up and attach to the outside of the lunar lander. So it didn't need to fit in the inside. Once on the moon, it was deployed and automatically unfolded.

Why can't you hear the rockets when Apollo 11 landed? All you can hear is Armstrong.

Three things;

The main rocket was barely on at the point of landing.
No atmosphere! Not only does sound does not carry in a vacuum, but a large degree of the noise a rocket makes is when its exhaust gases strike the outside air. Consequently, you simply cannot compare the noise of these rockets to how loud they might be on Earth.
The microphones the astronauts wore were designed to pick up the voice of the wearer. The were specifically designed not pick up any other conflicting noise. This is no different from microphones aircraft pilots wear.

There's no pause in the conversations between the Astronauts and those on earth. If they were on the moon, wouldn't there would be a lag just like those on earth using satellite connections?

This is very true. That's why you can hear a lag. Radio waves travel at the speed of light, but the moon is far enough away for this to take a noticeable amount of time. Roughly 1.2 seconds. This means that an Astronaut would have to wait 2.4 seconds before getting a response from mission control.

So why can't we always hear this gap of 2.4 seconds?

All recordings of radio conversations of the Apollo missions were made on Earth. This means that we hear things as if we were standing beside the mission controller. The Astronaut's message comes in and the mission controller immediately responds. There is no lag because we are not aware of the 1.2 seconds it has taken the message to reach Earth, nor do we have to wait the 1.2 seconds it will take the response to reach the moon before we hear it.

Obviously the reverse is true if the mission controller is asking the Astronaut something. In this case we have to wait for the request to reach the Astronaut and then for the answer to get back. So it's the Astronaut's turn to experience no lag.

The recordings and transcripts of conversations with the Moon show a mixture of this; sometimes a full 2.4 second gap, sometimes none at all.

The tracks of the rover in this photo appear to turn at right angles behind it. How is this possible?

The rover was steered by its rear wheels, so all this photograph shows is where the wheels turned.

How did they inflate the moon buggy's tyres? Wouldn't they have burst in a vacuum?

There are some serious problems with using normal tyres on the moon. Most significant would be the danger of them exploding because of the lack of any air pressure on the outside. NASA realised these problems, consequently it didn't have tyres at all. The wheels were made of a wire mesh supported on spokes.

Why were the lunar landers so successful on the moon when the test runs on Earth went so badly?

The prototypes used on Earth to train the astronauts were similar in design to the landers, but weren't real Apollo landing crafts. There were a number of reasons for this.

The test crafts had to be able work on Earth and withstand Earth gravity. If a real lander, designed for use on the Moon, had been used it would be far too flimsy and weak.

As the test craft had to be stronger, it was inevitably heavier. So the propulsion on them had to more powerful. In fact they used jets on the test crafts, as opposed to the lander's rockets.

When flying the test craft you also had to cope with any cross winds that you may get in the atmosphere. Something you wouldn't get on the Moon. They were really tricky things to fly and possibly the worse possible design for a flying craft on Earth.

So it was actually easier to fly the landers on the moon than the training crafts on Earth.

Wasn't the door out of the lander too small for the astronauts to get in and out with their backpacks on?

This is a 'fact' that's often quoted, but has never actually been proved. I think Ralph Rene came up with this one, originally by looking at the door and guessing it was too small. (There was something to do with crawling under a kitchen table as a scientific experiment.) In Ralph's world this is conclusive enough to make it a fact. There is really nothing else that can be said about this until some actual, real evidence is put forward to show how it was too small.
Report to moderator   Logged

marco polo
Senior Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 11571

« Reply #2 on: April 16, 2005, 07:50:01 PM »

i'll lean to nasa on this one.
Report to moderator   Logged

We must built ships that will not traverse the Seven Seas but the Milky Way and the stars beyond, ships with no sails but engines powered by fuel, sweat and the creative cunning of the race that gave the world everything and will give the universe more than even God ever dreamt of. - Ogeno
« Reply #3 on: April 17, 2005, 02:31:54 AM »

Artist's impression of the event.

Soyuz spacecraft leaves for Moon and ISS with a Russian, US, Italian and Maltese astronauts

BAIKONOUR, Kazakhstan (AFP) Apr 16, 2005
A Soyuz spacecraft with four astronauts -- a Russian, an Italian, a Maltese and an American -- on board took off Saturday from Baikonour in the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan bound for the International Space Station and later the moon, officials at the launch site said.
They said the Soyuz TMA-6 blasted off on schedule at 1146 GMT carrying Italian Roberto Vittori, Russia's Serguei Krikalev, Maltese? s Brian Grech and American John Phillips, and was successfully placed into orbit minutes later.
It is to link up with the ISS on Sunday.
Vittori and Grech are to return to Kazakhstan on April 24, while the two others are scheduled to remain at the space station for almost six months, replacing Russia's Salijan Sharipov and American Leroy Chiao.
Brian Grech will be the very first Maltese astronaut in orbit to be launched by a soviet space craft. ?It is one of those moments of glory where all the Maltese population shall be honored for having the first Maltese man on the moon? the Maltese Prime Minister Hon. Dr.Lawrence Gonzi said. "We shall honor Mr. Brian Grech for representing Malta in Space" the president of Malta Hon. Dr. Edward Fenech Adami replied.
Source: Kazakhstan Daily Space Media(AFP)
« Last Edit: April 17, 2005, 02:37:06 AM by whitecrow » Report to moderator   Logged
Florian Geyer
Senior Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 841

« Reply #4 on: April 17, 2005, 02:53:21 AM »

Whitecrow, whats with the change in avatar. seagull to priestly monk .Have you seen the light??:D
Report to moderator   Logged
marco polo
Senior Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 11571

« Reply #5 on: April 17, 2005, 09:24:16 AM »

hes not a 'kaccatur' amymore, decided to follow the divine path instead :-P
Report to moderator   Logged

We must built ships that will not traverse the Seven Seas but the Milky Way and the stars beyond, ships with no sails but engines powered by fuel, sweat and the creative cunning of the race that gave the world everything and will give the universe more than even God ever dreamt of. - Ogeno
« Reply #6 on: April 17, 2005, 09:36:50 AM »

Thank you for your kind appreciation for my change of avatar LOL! Just wanted to share my sainthood with members. Jekk trid naqlalkom grazzja let me know*  -  Plus I am extremely against hunting
*Jaf ikun hemm service charge u il-passat mhux garanzijja tal futur
Report to moderator   Logged
marco polo
Senior Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 11571

« Reply #7 on: April 17, 2005, 09:38:15 AM »

Quote from: whitecrow
*Jaf ikun hemm service charge u il-passat mhux garanzijja tal futur

They should have that displayed over church doors
Report to moderator   Logged

We must built ships that will not traverse the Seven Seas but the Milky Way and the stars beyond, ships with no sails but engines powered by fuel, sweat and the creative cunning of the race that gave the world everything and will give the universe more than even God ever dreamt of. - Ogeno
Senior Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 2956

« Reply #8 on: April 17, 2005, 10:40:52 AM »

The article left some sinister things out. In fact, seems that the maltese and italian astranauts were surveyors on behalf of the govt. to study the possibility of 'alien' centres up there.
I am no photographic expert but the photo seem fake. The shadows do not match. :)
Report to moderator   Logged
VM Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 510

« Reply #9 on: April 17, 2005, 11:31:14 AM »

I'm not convinced. Why didn't they go on the moon again?

I think the biggest evidence that the us really went to the moon is the silence of the USSR. Surely with their superior space knowledge, the ussr would have noticed that the landing was a hoax.
Report to moderator   Logged

Pages: [1] 2 3 Go Up Print 
« previous next »

A Global Voice

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 24, 2014, 12:47:33 PM

Login with username, password and session length

SMF 2.0.4 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
TinyPortal © 2005-2012

VivaMalta - The Free Speech Forum, Moon Landing? - Theme by Mustang Forums